company logo

Product

Our Product

We are Reshaping the way Developers find and fix vulnerabilities before they get exploited.

Solutions

By Industry

BFSI

Healthcare

Education

IT & Telecom

Government

By Role

CISO

Application Security Engineer

DevsecOps Engineer

IT Manager

Resources

Resource Library

Get actionable insight straight from our threat Intel lab to keep you informed about the ever-changing Threat landscape.

Subscribe to Our Weekly Threat Digest

Company

Contact Us

Have queries, feedback or prospects? Get in touch and we shall be with you shortly.

loading..
loading..
loading..
Loading...

WP

loading..
loading..
loading..

Critical OttoKit WordPress Plugin Exploit Sparks Widespread Security Concerns

Hackers are exploiting a critical privilege escalation flaw in OttoKit (SureTriggers) WordPress plugin to hijack sites. Learn about CVE-2025-27007, attack patte...

07-May-2025
4 min read

No content available.

Related Articles

loading..

DDoS

FastNetMon detects record 1.5 Gpps UDP flood from 11,000+ compromised CPEs, expo...

FastNetMon has confirmed detection of a **record-scale Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack**, peaking at **1.5 billion packets per second (Gpps)**. The assault, targeting a European DDoS scrubbing provider, is one of the highest packet-rate floods ever disclosed publicly. While not the largest in raw bandwidth, the event highlights the evolving threat of **packet-saturation attacks** designed to overwhelm router CPU, control planes, and scrubbing pipelines rather than transit links. ## Attack Profile The attack was not a conventional volumetric flood but a **massive UDP-based packet storm** launched from globally distributed compromised devices. * **Vector**: UDP flood targeting scrubbing infrastructure. * **Scale**: 1.5 Gpps peak rate. * **Bandwidth**: Lower than multi-Tbps volumetric floods, but optimized for packet-per-second impact. * **Origin**: Over **11,000 autonomous networks** contributed traffic. * **Botnet composition**: Large clusters of compromised **MikroTik routers and IoT devices**, acting as customer premises equipment (CPE). This methodology indicates adversaries are prioritizing **state-exhaustion vectors** over pipe saturation, aiming at **router forwarding engines, ACL tables, and scrubbing CPUs**. ## Detection Mechanisms [FastNetMon](https://fastnetmon.com/2025/09/09/press-release-fastnetmon-detects-a-record-scale-ddos-attack/)’s **flow telemetry analysis platform**, written in optimized C++, enabled near-real-time detection. Critical elements: * **Flow-based anomaly detection**: Identifying packet-rate anomalies at the millisecond scale. * **CPU-efficient algorithms**: Parsing billions of NetFlow/IPFIX records without loss. * **Real-time signaling**: Immediate trigger of defensive ACLs and scrubbing workflows. Detection latency is crucial in Gpps-scale attacks, where control plane resources can be exhausted within seconds. ## Mitigation Strategies Mitigation combined automated filtering, rate-limiting, and scrubbing workflows: * **Access Control Lists (ACLs)** deployed on upstream edge routers to discard obvious spoofed traffic. * **Scrubbing center packet inspection**, including UDP state analysis and anomaly detection. * **Dynamic blackholing** for unmitigable subnets, sacrificing reachability to preserve upstream stability. * **Rate-limit enforcement** for specific UDP ports leveraged in amplification or flood scenarios. While effective in this instance, the reliance on ACLs at such scale exposes **edge router performance bottlenecks**. ACL deployment at 1.5 Gpps stresses TCAM capacity and control plane update cycles. ## Strategic Implications This event represents a **paradigm shift** in attacker priorities: * **From bandwidth to packet-rate**: Threat actors are engineering floods to stress *packet processing pipelines*, bypassing traditional bandwidth-centric defenses. * **CPE exploitation**: The reliance on compromised routers and IoT devices underscores persistent **firmware negligence** and **default credential exploitation**. * **ISP responsibility**: Filtering at the **ISP level** is essential; without outbound UDP controls, infected CPEs become unfiltered launchpads. * **Scrubbing resilience**: Providers must scale to handle not just Tbps floods but **multi-Gpps packet rates**. ## Comparative Context Other recent incidents highlight the dual evolution of attack methodologies: * **[Cloudflare](https://www.secureblink.com/cyber-security-news/cloudflare-crushes-11-5-tbps-d-do-s-blitz-from-google-cloud) mitigation (2025)**: Reported **11.5 Tbps, 5.1 Bpps** floods, prioritizing volumetric scale alongside packet-rate stress. * **[FastNetMon](https://fastnetmon.com/2025/09/09/1-5-billion-packets-per-second-ddos-attack-detected-with-fastnetmon/) detection (2025)**: Emphasis on packet-rate intensity at 1.5 Gpps, demonstrating adversaries can weaponize **smaller devices at massive distribution scale**. **Comparison Snapshot**: | Attack Event | Scale | Nature | Key Target | Implication | | ----------------- | -------------------- | -------------------- | ---------- | ------------------------ | | Cloudflare (2025) | 11.5 Tbps / 5.1 Bpps | Volumetric + packets | Edge pipes | Bandwidth exhaustion | | FastNetMon (2025) | 1.5 Gpps | Pure packet flood | Scrubbing | Control plane exhaustion | This dual trend suggests defenders must build **multi-layered resilience**: bandwidth mitigation *and* packet-rate scaling. ## Recommendations ### For ISPs * Implement **egress filtering** (BCP38/BCP84) to suppress spoofed UDP from customer networks. * Deploy **telemetry pipelines** for per-subscriber packet-rate anomaly detection. * Maintain **ACL automation frameworks** capable of near-instant deployment at line rate. ### For Scrubbing Providers * Architect scrubbing centers with **packet-rate scaling in mind**, not just raw bandwidth capacity. * Offload filtering to **programmable ASICs and FPGA-based platforms** to avoid CPU bottlenecks. * Invest in **low-latency telemetry triggers** that initiate mitigation before exhaustion thresholds are hit. ### For Device Vendors & Enterprises * Enforce **secure defaults**: no factory default passwords, minimal UDP exposure. * Ensure **firmware patch pipelines** for consumer routers and IoT devices. * Promote **carrier-grade automatic update mechanisms** for widely deployed CPE. The 1.5 Gpps flood detected by FastNetMon is a **milestone in DDoS evolution**. It highlights a new generation of threats where **packet processing exhaustion** is prioritized over bandwidth saturation. With IoT and CPE devices weaponized into global botnets, the defensive burden shifts to ISPs, scrubbing providers, and device vendors alike. Without **systemic adoption of ISP-level egress filtering, firmware hardening, and packet-rate aware scrubbing infrastructure**, the next wave of Gbps-scale floods could cripple even the most prepared networks. This incident should be treated not as an outlier but as a **preview of the coming normal** in high-velocity, distributed denial-of-service warfare.

loading..   11-Sep-2025
loading..   4 min read
loading..

iCloud

Attackers exploit iCloud Calendar invites via Apple servers to deliver phishing ...

Attackers are creating **iCloud Calendar events** whose **Notes/DESCRIPTION** field contains a classic **refund/billing lure** (e.g., fake **\$599 [PayPal](https://www.secureblink.com/cyber-security-news/35-000-pay-pal-users-data-exposed-in-credential-stuffing-attack-1)** charge) plus a **“call us”** number. They invite a **Microsoft 365 address that’s a forwarding list**, so Apple’s servers send the calendar invite, and **Microsoft’s SRS** preserves SPF alignment when it gets forwarded. Result: the email shows **From: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])** with **SPF, DKIM, DMARC all passing**; many gateways and users treat it as trusted. Calling the number leads to **callback social engineering** and potential **remote-access malware/financial theft**. ### Why it’s hard to block: * **Authentic infrastructure:** Source IP 17.23.6.69 is in Apple’s **17.0.0.0/8** network; DKIM=pass, DMARC=pass for `email.apple.com`. Gateways often soften inspection when major brands fully authenticate. * **Forwarding resiliency via SRS:** Microsoft 365 rewrites the **envelope sender** on forwarded mail (not the visible header), so **SPF keeps passing** after list forwarding. ([Microsoft Learn][3]) * **Legitimate feature abuse, not an exploit:** It’s a normal **iCalendar** (RFC 5545) invite with **METHOD\:REQUEST** and phishing text in the **DESCRIPTION** (Notes). No vulnerability required. ## What’s actually happening (annotated) **Observed message traits:** * Visible sender: `[email protected]` * **Authentication-Results** example: ``` spf=pass (sender IP is 17.23.6.69) smtp.mailfrom=email.apple.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=email.apple.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=email.apple.com; ``` * Body content carried in the **iCloud Calendar invite** (Notes/DESCRIPTION) with a **callback number** (e.g., +1-786-902-8579) and a **fake PayPal charge (\$599)**. * Target recipient: a Microsoft 365 address (likely a **mailing list**) that forwards to many recipients; Microsoft 365 applies **SRS** so **Return-Path** shows an SRS-rewritten value while the visible **From:** remains Apple. **Why the signals are green:** * **SPF** authorizes Apple IPs to send for `email.apple.com` (the envelope MAIL FROM). * **DKIM** cryptographically ties the message to `email.apple.com`. * **DMARC** aligns the visible From: with at least one passing mechanism, so it **passes**. (SPF: RFC 7208; DKIM: RFC 6376; DMARC: RFC 7489). **About Apple IP 17/8:** The sender example **17.23.6.69** sits in Apple’s long-held **17.0.0.0/8** allocation (ARIN/Apple guidance), so IP reputation alone won’t flag it. **About the calendar format:** The payload is a standard **iCalendar** object per **RFC 5545**; the **DESCRIPTION** (aka “Notes”) is simply text and can contain phone numbers, URLs, or scare-copy. Nothing exotic—just a trustworthy wrapper. ## Threat model & kill chain 1. **Setup** — Attacker creates an iCloud Calendar event; puts **lure text + callback** in DESCRIPTION (Notes). 2. **Targeting** — Invites a **Microsoft 365 list** (e.g., `[email protected]`) so Apple’s system sends the invite email. 3. **Delivery** — Email originates from Apple, passes **SPF/DKIM/DMARC**; after list forwarding, **SRS** retains SPF pass. 4. **Social engineering** — Victim calls; attacker escalates to **remote-access “refund” support** flow → risk of **funds theft/malware/data exfiltration**. ## What **doesn’t** work well * **Blocking by sender domain/IP**: `apple.com` + **17/8** are legitimate; you’ll break real Apple traffic. ([whois.arin.net][2]) * **Relying solely on DMARC/SPF/DKIM**: These prove **authenticity of the sender domain**, not **legitimacy of the content**. (That’s by design in the RFCs.) * **Attachment-only inspection**: Not all calendar invites are attachments (`.ics`); many are inline with **`Content-Type: text/calendar`**, so “attachment-content” rules can miss them. (Use header/content checks too.) ## Pragmatic defenses > Aim for **context-aware detections** that target *calendar messages with financial/urgent callback language*, not “Apple” as a brand. ### 1) Mail flow rules that target **calendar content** * **Condition:** *Message header includes* `Content-Type` with `text/calendar` (or *matches pattern* `text/calendar`). * **AND**: *Message body or headers include words/patterns* like `PayPal`, `charged`, `refund`, `call`, currency amounts, or phone numbers. * **Action:** prepend a warning, add high-risk SCL, or quarantine for moderation. Microsoft 365 supports **message-header** predicates and **regex** in rules; use them to key off `Content-Type` and suspicious phrases. **Example (conceptual) rule logic** * *If* `A message header includes` → Header name: `Content-Type` → Value contains `text/calendar` * *And* `The subject or body matches` → regex set (see below) * *Then* → Quarantine or prepend banner **Regex snippets (common English lures)** # US phone numbers (+1 optional), allow separators/spaces (?i)\b(\+?1[\s\-\.]?)?\(?\d{3}\)?[\s\-\.]?\d{3}[\s\-\.]?\d{4}\b # Urgent payment/cancellation lexicon (?i)\b(paypal|charged|debited|invoice|refund|cancel|billing|transaction)\b # Currency amounts like $599.00 (?i)\$\s?\d{2,4}(\.\d{2})? ``` > Tip: Keep a separate allow-list exception **only** for known calendar partners to limit false positives. ### 2) Inspect attachments **and** inline calendar parts Where invites **are** `.ics` files, you can still use **attachment inspection** in Exchange Online; but also add **header/body** rules so inline invites are covered. (See attachment inspection & predicates docs.) ### 3) Advanced Hunting (Defender for O365/M365) Hunt for **calendar messages** with callback indicators. **KQL (illustrative)** ```kusto EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | where SenderFromDomain =~ "email.apple.com" or NetworkMessageId in ( EmailHeaders | where Name =~ "Content-Type" and tostring(Value) contains "text/calendar" | distinct NetworkMessageId ) | extend hasCallbackPhone = iff(Subject has "call", true, false) | summarize count(), any(Subject), any(SenderFromAddress) by RecipientEmailAddress | order by count_ desc ``` > Swap in body inspection via `EmailUrlInfo`/`EmailAttachmentInfo` joins where available, or use `EmailHeaders` to key on `Content-Type`. (Field availability varies by license/telemetry tier.) ### 4) User-experience hardening * **Banner external calendar messages** and teach users **“DMARC pass ≠ safe.”** * **Optional (high-risk groups):** Turn off **auto-processing** of meeting requests so invites aren’t silently added; users must accept manually, improving scrutiny. (Outlook setting under *File → Options → Mail → Tracking*). ([Microsoft Support][10]) ### 5) SOC playbook (callback phish) 1. **Contain**: Block the **callback number** at voice gateways; add to TI. 2. **Hunt**: Search for the number in **mail & chat**, and for **remote-tool beacons** post-call. 3. **Notify**: Targeted users; emphasize **do not call** unsolicited numbers. 4. **Eradicate**: Remove invites, revoke any installed remote tools, reset creds if screen-sharing occurred. ## Technical appendix ### A) Why this survives forwarding **Sender Rewriting Scheme (SRS)** in Microsoft 365 rewrites the **P1 (envelope) MAIL FROM** when a message is forwarded externally, preserving **SPF** when the forwarder sends on someone’s behalf. The **P2 (visible From:)** stays as the original (Apple), so **DMARC still aligns**. ([Microsoft Learn][3]) **Observed in the wild:** ``` Original Return-Path: [email protected] Rewritten Return-Path: bounces+SRS=...@<tenant>.onmicrosoft.com ``` ### B) iCalendar anatomy you can key on Core elements from **RFC 5545** (typical malicious invites will have these): ``` BEGIN:VCALENDAR METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY: <often a fake order/charge> DESCRIPTION: <lure text with phone # or link> ORGANIZER;CN=<iCloud user>:mailto:<...> ATTENDEE;CN=<list or target>:mailto:<...> END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR ``` Focus your rules on `Content-Type: text/calendar`, `METHOD:REQUEST`, and **DESCRIPTION** keywords. ([IETF Datatracker][4]) ### C) Why email auth won’t save you * **SPF** authorizes the sending server for the *envelope* domain. * **DKIM** attests message integrity & signer domain. * **DMARC** checks alignment of visible From: with SPF/DKIM results and applies a sender-published policy. None of these assess **message intent**; a **legit sender can send malicious content** (abuse). ([IETF Datatracker][6]) ## Indicators (from the report; rotate fast in practice) * **Sender/Domain:** `[email protected]` * **Auth-Results:** `spf=pass` (IP like **17.23.6.69**), `dkim=pass` (`d=email.apple.com`), `dmarc=pass` * **Lure keywords:** “PayPal”, “\$599”, “refund”, “call/support” * **Callback example:** `+1 (786) 902-8579` Treat these as **patterns**, not fixed IOCs. | Step | Risk Factor | Your Defensive Action | | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | | 1⃣ | iCloud Calendar invite with purchase notification in Notes | Treat unexpected invites with high suspicion | | 2⃣ | From email appears to be legitimate Apple address | Don’t trust just the sender—analyze content and context | | 3⃣ | Microsoft 365 forwarding preserves deliverability & authenticity | Recognize SRS behavior but focus on suspicious content | | 4⃣ | Callback phishing leads to remote access/malware installation | Never install tools or provide access based on such calls | This method combines the trust in Apple’s email infrastructure with Microsoft 365's SRS mechanism to create phishing messages that appear both legitimate and technically authenticated. It’s a step beyond usual phishing tactics, blending familiarity with advanced email spoofing to successfully bypass defenses.

loading..   09-Sep-2025
loading..   7 min read